Huge ruling on campaign laws, free speech

Huge ruling on campaign laws, free speech

The Supreme Court just ended the long-held ban prohibiting corporations from spending money on political advertisements:

WASHINGTON — Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy.

The 5-to-4 decision represented a sharp doctrinal shift, and it will have major political and practical consequences. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision, which also applies to labor unions and other organizations, to reshape the way elections are conducted.

It’s hard to overstate the impact of this ruling. It basically throws out the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law and says that the government can’t tell corporations (including non-profit advocacy groups and labor unions) when and how they can spend their money to influence an election. Up till this point, the law banned groups from paying for ads 30 days prior to a general election unless the ads were not actually advocating for a candidate.

I think this is the correct ruling. I understand the arguments for restricting spending on campaigns — we don’t want corporations and advocacy groups with a bunch of money to misled the public buying up all the airtime right before an election. For the good of democracy, the argument goes, we should limit how much speech certain groups can have. But, in practice, corporations and advocacy groups were still spending a lot of money, despite all the laws. In Georgia, I saw plenty of ads that worked their way around the law. They’d tell me what sinister thing my elected official was up to and suggest I call them and ask them to stop. What they were really saying was — vote for the other candidate.

In the end, I agree with former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who said that “money, like water, will always find an outlet.” Crafting layer upon layer of regulation will never stem the flow of money into politics — so let’s just let it flow. In the marketplace of ideas, the best ideas will win.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Matt J. Duffy, PhD, is an academic media scholar. His works have been accepted for publication in the Journal of Middle East Media, the Journal of Mass Media Ethics and the Newspaper Research Journal. An assistant professor of communication, Duffy teaches UAE and international media law at Zayed University in Abu Dhabi. He is an active member of AUSACE, the Arab-US Association for Communication Educators. Follow him on Twitter.

8 Comments

Ideally the best idea would win all of the time. But our society is driven by commerce, that being said corporations already have a great deal of influence over our way of life. A large company like JP Morgan is made up of thousands of employees and investors who are actually the makers and owners of that money. This large number of people do not necessary hold the beliefs that the controlling power of the company has. If the CEO decides to support a particular candidate he uses the money of countless individuals to invoke their individual or small group's goal. Ultimately, giving corporations unregulated financial influence in Washington won’t be getting rid of "Tha Man", but creating a new, more powerful one. But who knows? I guess we will soon see what happens when Wall Street meets Washington.

The Bank of America / Pabst Blue Ribbon / Doritos Nacho Cheese 111th United States Congressional 2nd session!Ok, so corporations are people. However, people are limited to $2000 of contribution to candidates. Why are they not limited to $2000, as well? Also, will this be the end of 'Advertising paid for by People Who Like Mentos' and the actual corporation will put their corp's name on the ad?

@Kristin: MoveOn.org is also a corporation. Before this ruling, the federal government could prohibit them from spending their money to influence an election. That's just not right — how else can private citizens band together and exercise their speech in a way that makes an impact?@Erica: Yes, the $2,000 limit will still be in place. But, there will no limit in giving money to organizations (i.e., corporations) that will bundled it with other donations to influence elections. I think groups will still be required to say who paid for the ad. @Both: Corporations such as Tostitos and Bank of America have a natural disincentive to not get too political — they know that they'll alienate half their customers and cause their sales to decline. This ruling is really more about limiting the speech of these advocacy groups like MoveOn, the NRA, labor unions, etc.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

About the Author

Dr. Matt J. Duffy serves as an assistant professor in the School of Communication and Media at Kennesaw State University in Georgia, USA. He enjoys teaching the art of good journalism, a noble profession and powerful tool for social change. Duffy worked as a journalist for several news outlets including the Boston Herald and the Marietta Daily Journal. He now teaches journalism and media law.
Duffy's research focuses on international approaches to media law. Wolters Kluwer will publish the second edition of his"Media Laws in the United Arab Emirates" in 2017. He has published more than a dozen academic articles and writes occasionally for niche publications. Duffy enjoyed a visit to Pakistan in May 2016 as part of the Fulbright Scholar program from the US State Department. Since 2012, Duffy has served on the board of the Arab-United States Association for Communication Educators, an organization that aims to improve journalism in the Middle East. He also owns Oxford Editing that he started in 2007.